MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EU Relations with European Micro‐States. Happily Ever After?

2007· article· en· W1596660678 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Law Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIsland Studies and Pacific Affairs
Canadian institutionsWeyerhauser (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccessionPosition (finance)Political scienceSubject (documents)International tradeResizingMember statesEuropean Neighbourhood PolicyPolitical economyEconomyEuropean unionBusinessSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The last decade has seen the EU striving to bring uniformity into its relations with its immediate neighbours. Such endeavor has led the EU to adopt the European Neighbourhood Policy towards countries with no immediate prospects of accession and to follow more or less similar pre‐accession strategies towards candidate and to‐be candidate countries. However, European micro‐states (Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Monaco—the Vatican not being the subject of this article) have always occupied an exceptional position in the EU's web of external relations. This article provides a brief but concise overview of the international legal framework governing the bilateral relations of the EU with these small countries. Through the examination of their peculiar historical, social, geographic and economic attributes, it is argued that the advantages that micro‐states have been able to reap so far from the unique position they enjoy in the EU and the global economy may not be easily reconcilable in the future with the EU's ever‐increasing appetite to unify, standardise and harmonise.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it